Facebook Ads Can Still Discriminate, Despite a Civil Rights Settlement • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook Ads Can Still Discriminate, Despite a Civil Rights Settlement

#31

Post by mandelbrotwurst » Sat, Dec 14, 2019, 1:25 AM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #16

sp332 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why, among other things, Facebook made "a tool so you can search for and view all current housing ads in the US targeted to different places across the country, regardless of whether the ads are shown to you." https://about.fb.com/news/2019/03/protecting-against-discrim... So advertisers can target you, but they can't keep you from seeing an ad if you go looking for it.

If this tool exists and allows ads to be viewed with the same visibility as their normal targeting then why are they bothering with targeted ads anymore?

I believe the idea is that while the tool gives you an interface to find those ads, it doesn't replace the ads that you see during usage of the rest of Facebook.

Re: Facebook Ads Can Still Discriminate, Despite a Civil Rights Settlement

#32

Post by stickfigure » Sat, Dec 14, 2019, 1:26 AM UTC

This is silly. By definition, if you're advertising on Facebook, you're selecting for a certain demographic. It's a bit broader than the AARP but by picking any medium you are discriminating against the people who don't follow that medium.

It's also weird to say you shouldn't be able to target certain demographics. An ad that resonates well with seniors might resonate poorly with millennials. You might want to attract both! So you run multiple ads. Or you target youngsters on Instagram and oldsters in the NYT.

This is not something Facebook is in any position to police.

Re: Facebook Ads Can Still Discriminate, Despite a Civil Rights Settlement

#33

Post by sandoooo » Sat, Dec 14, 2019, 1:36 AM UTC

whiddershins wrote: post #6

I can’t understand, in succinct plain terms, what the desired outcome is here. What would it look like if the ads were not biased, or discriminating, in any bad way.

You can't understand because you're not reading between the lines. The surface message is self-contradicting, but the underlying is clear-cut.

They want a world where advertisers are not allowed to direct messages at their outgroup or the things their outgroup like. You will be allowed to sell perfume to women by putting a model on your billboard, but the same model can't sell ferraris to young men. Shaving razors shall follow only the Gillette model, no glorification of masculinity. Want to advertise your engineering position on FB? Better prominently advertise your diversity programme and paid maternity leave and nothing else. Definitely don't mention beer night.

Re: Facebook Ads Can Still Discriminate, Despite a Civil Rights Settlement

#34

Post by currymj » Sat, Dec 14, 2019, 1:43 AM UTC

sandoooo wrote: post #33

whiddershins wrote: post #6

I can’t understand, in succinct plain terms, what the desired outcome is here. What would it look like if the ads were not biased, or discriminating, in any bad way.

You can't understand because you're not reading between the lines. The surface message is self-contradicting, but the underlying is clear-cut. They want a world where advertisers are not allowed to direct messages at their outgroup or the things their outgroup like. You will be allowed to sell perfume to women by putting a model on your billboard, but the same model can't sell ferraris to young men. Shaving razors sh…

this is a pretty paranoid view. the restrictions only apply to very specific categories where there have been laws against discrimination for many decades. perfume and razors are not among them.

Re: Facebook Ads Can Still Discriminate, Despite a Civil Rights Settlement

#35

Post by unlinked_dll » Sat, Dec 14, 2019, 1:46 AM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #29

edmundsauto wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accuracy is not the top objective in these systems, fairness is.

In this example, what is fairness, if not the most accurate prediction possible?

The effect of its use on policy.

Re: Facebook Ads Can Still Discriminate, Despite a Civil Rights Settlement

#36

Post by sandoooo » Sat, Dec 14, 2019, 1:46 AM UTC

currymj wrote: post #34

sandoooo wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't understand because you're not reading between the lines. The surface message is self-contradicting, but the underlying is clear-cut. They want a world where advertisers are not allowed to direct messages at their outgroup or the things their outgroup like. You will be allowed to sell perfume to women by putting a model on your billboard, but the same model can't sell ferraris to young men. Shaving razors sh…

this is a pretty paranoid view. the restrictions only apply to very specific categories where there have been laws against discrimination for many decades. perfume and razors are not among them.

Specific categories such as employment and housing, for example? Urgh, fine, pretend my examples were about bachelor pads. Same deal: don't target the young men who actually buy them, because we don't like those people and we don't want any part of the economy to cater for them.

There is no material change in my argument.

Re: Facebook Ads Can Still Discriminate, Despite a Civil Rights Settlement

#37

Post by blackoil » Sat, Dec 14, 2019, 1:49 AM UTC

_8j50 wrote: post #23

blackoil wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would entail no magazine/blog should also be targeting to a social group. i.e. no men's or women's magazine

What a silly argument, the magazine is not the advertiser. It's fine for content to target groups but not ads! You can have a men's magazine and the ads on there can target men, you can't have a men's magazine that sends out prints with ads targeting specific subsets of men. Content targeting is fine, user targeting is not.

So you are saying articles about best jobs targeted by gender will not create social bubbles, but an ad will do so?

Re: Facebook Ads Can Still Discriminate, Despite a Civil Rights Settlement

#38

Post by currymj » Sat, Dec 14, 2019, 2:03 AM UTC

sandoooo wrote: post #36

currymj wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is a pretty paranoid view. the restrictions only apply to very specific categories where there have been laws against discrimination for many decades. perfume and razors are not among them.

Specific categories such as employment and housing, for example? Urgh, fine, pretend my examples were about bachelor pads. Same deal: don't target the young men who actually buy them, because we don't like those people and we don't want any part of the economy to cater for them. There is no material change in my argument.

I really doubt that Lyndon Johnson was thinking about how much he hates men when he signed the Fair Housing Act into law.

Re: Facebook Ads Can Still Discriminate, Despite a Civil Rights Settlement

#39

Post by s1artibartfast » Sat, Dec 14, 2019, 2:03 AM UTC

unlinked_dll wrote: post #35

s1artibartfast wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this example, what is fairness, if not the most accurate prediction possible?

The effect of its use on policy.

That is incredibly vague. What effect and what policy?

Re: Facebook Ads Can Still Discriminate, Despite a Civil Rights Settlement

#40

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Dec 14, 2019, 2:05 AM UTC

sandoooo wrote: post #36

currymj wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is a pretty paranoid view. the restrictions only apply to very specific categories where there have been laws against discrimination for many decades. perfume and razors are not among them.

Specific categories such as employment and housing, for example? Urgh, fine, pretend my examples were about bachelor pads. Same deal: don't target the young men who actually buy them, because we don't like those people and we don't want any part of the economy to cater for them. There is no material change in my argument.

[deleted]